Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 22STCV03070, Date: 2022-09-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV03070    Hearing Date: September 21, 2022    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely (which is highly encouraged).  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

Plaintiffs Thomas Zeiler (“Thomas”) and Kim Zeiler (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) sued defendant/cross-defendant U-Haul Co. of California (“UHC”) based on a slip and fall on property owned and controlled by defendant/cross-complainant Costco Wholesale Corporation (“Costco”).  Plaintiffs alleges Thomas slipped and fell in a puddle of gasoline originating from a leak in a truck owned by UHC.  UHC demurs to Costso’s entire first amended cross-complaint.  Costco opposes the demurrer.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

Under Evidence Code section 451, “[j]udicial notice shall be taken of the following: (a) The decisional, constitutional, and public statutory law of this state and of the United States and the provisions of any charter described in Section 3, 4, or 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution…(f) Facts and propositions of generalized knowledge that are so universally known that they cannot reasonably be the subject of dispute. ” (Evid. Code, § 451, subds. (a), (f).)

Under Evidence Code section 452, “[j]udicial notice may be taken of the following matters to the extent that they are not embraced within Section 451: (a) The decisional, constitutional, and statutory law of any state of the United States and the resolutions and private acts of the Congress of the United States and of the Legislature of this state. (b) Regulations and legislative enactments issued by or under the authority of the United States or any public entity in the United States. (c) Official acts of the legislative, executive, and judicial departments of the United States and of any state of the United States (d) Record of (1) any court of this state or (2) any court of record of the United States or of any state of the United States…(g) Facts and propositions that are of such common knowledge within the territorial jurisdictions of the court that they cannot reasonably be the subject of dispute. (h) Facts and propositions that are not reasonably subject to dispute and are capably of immediate and accurate determination by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy.” (Evid. Code, § 452, subds. (a)-(d), (g), (h).)

The Court “shall take notice of any matter specified in Section 452 if a party requests it and: (a) Gives each adverse party sufficient notice of the request, through the pleadings or otherwise, to enable such adverse party to prepare to meet the request; and (b) Furnishes the court with sufficient information to enable it to take judicial notice of the matter.” (Evid. Code, § 453.)

            Here, UHC requests the Court take judicial notice of UHC’s status as a lessor of vehicles.  The Court grants the request per Evidence Code section 452, subdivisions (g) and (h). 

ANALYSIS

“It is black letter law that a demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the allegations in a complaint.”  (Lewis v. Safeway, Inc. (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 385, 388.)  In ruling on a demurrer, the court must “liberally construe[]” the allegations of the complaint.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 452.)  “This rule of liberal construction means that the reviewing court draws inferences favorable to the plaintiff, not the defendant.”  (Perez v. Golden Empire Transit Dist. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1228, 1238.)

Here, UHC argues Costco’s claims for indemnification, declaratory relief, apportionment of fault, and equitable indemnity in the first amended cross-complaint are precluded by the Graves Amendment.  UHC asserts that, in ruling on UHC’s demurrer to Plaintiffs’ underlying complaint, the Court acknowledged the complaint contained no material factual allegation of negligence or criminal wrongdoing on the part of UHC.  This is not so. In its May 9, 2022 Minute Order, the Court found Plaintiffs’ complaint alleged sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action with respect to Plaintiffs’ first cause of action for negligence and related fourth cause of action for loss of consortium against UHC.  (See May 9, 2022 Minute Order.)  Nevertheless, UHC contends the cross-complaint fails to state any cause of action against it because the facts alleged in Plaintiffs’ underlying complaint fail to establish negligence or criminal conduct on the part of UHC.

In opposition, Costco argues the Graves Amendment is inapplicable with respect to Plaintiffs’ cause of action for negligence.  Specifically, Costco asserts the facts alleged in Plaintiffs’ complaint show Plaintiffs’ injury was not due to an act of the lessor in the use or operation of the vehicle, but rather poor maintenance of the vehicle owned by UHC.  Costco thus concludes that both Plaintiffs’ complaint and the first amended cross-complaint state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against UHC.

The Graves Amendment, which is set forth at section 30106 of title 49 of the United States Code, preempts state law liability for motor vehicle rental and leasing companies if there is no negligence or criminal wrongdoing on the part of the companies. (49 U.S.C., § 30106, subd. (a).)  The Graves Amendment does not supersede any state law that imposes liability for failure to maintain specified insurance minimums.  (See 49 U.S.C., § 30106, subd. (b).) 

Here, although Plaintiffs have dismissed UHC from the case, Plaintiffs’ complaint maintains a cause of action for negligence against Costco based on the gasoline that leaked from the UHC’s vehicle onto Costco’s property and caused Thomas to slip and sustain injury.  (See Complaint, ¶¶ 38, 40.)  Accordingly, and in light of its May 9, 2022 Minute Order, the Court finds Costco’s claims against UHC in the first amended cross-complaint are not necessarily precluded by the Graves Amendment. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court overrules the demurrer to the first amended cross-complaint.  The Court orders UHC to file and serve an answer to the amended cross-complaint within 20 days of notice of the hearing. 

The Clerk of the Court shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling.